Monsanto, and its critics

December 16, 2015

Have you heard? Monsanto is going on trial in The Hague for “crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide.” The Organic Consumers Association had the story:

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups announced today that they will put Monsanto MON (NYSE), a US-based transnational corporation, on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

The steering committee organizing this citizens tribunal — which has nothing to do with the International Court of Justice, a real court located in the Hague — includes Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, the activist Vandana Shiva and scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini, all of them unrelenting critics of genetic engineering who allegations bear only a loose resemblance to the facts. (See this and this and this.) Somehow I don’t think this trial will end well for Monsanto.

I bring this up because I recently interviewed Hugh Grant, the chief executive of Monsanto, about climate change and GMOs for a story in the Guardian. He told me, among other things, that he wishes the debate about genetic engineering would become more science-based and less polarized. (Good luck with that.) Fortunately, Monsanto has retained the trust of thousands of corn and soy farmers who rely on its seeds and crop protection products.

My story describes how Monsanto now intends to work farmers to help them farm in more climate-friendly ways, and to help them adapt to the threat of climate change. Here’s how it begins:

You have an easy job,” I tell Hugh Grant, the CEO of Monsanto, as we sit down at the W Hotel in New York City. He looks puzzled, so I explain: “I just read on the Internet that Monsanto controls the world’s food supply.”

Success hasn’t been easy: the agriculture business is competitive, and farmers are constantly looking for ways to increase yields, says Grant, who has been with Monsanto for 34 years. “We have to win their business every year.”

It’s true that Monsanto is a big player in the ag biz, but notice that most farmers choose not to buy its seeds. It’s hardly in control of anything.

Whether or not they are customers of Monsanto, US farmers are incredibly productive. While some critics question whether the US should export its agricultural methods to poor countries, Grant notes that

while US corn farmers generate yields of 150 to 160 bushels per acre, farmers in Brazil, Mexico and India get about 100 bushels per acre and those in Africa produce only about 20 bushels. There’s enormous room for improvement in Africa, he says.

I wonder what, exactly, the anti-GMO forces who are going to spend their time and money to put Monsanto “on trial” intend to do for farmers in Africa.

More to the point, I wonder why the anti-GMO forces believe they are in a better position than farmers to know what’s good for them. In a competitive marketplace, where there are no obvious information asymmetries, farmers every year choose to do business with Monsanto. Are they misguided?

Like all companies, Monsanto has made mistakes. Perhaps more than its share. But I honestly don’t understand why this company is so maligned.

Comments

People get worried when Science starts messing with the Food Chain, despite the obvious need for advancements in Agriculture in order to feed the World. It is no accident that the story of Frankenstein is often referenced in the anti-GMO rhetoric…that is precisely what many fear. Messing with Nature, or even predicting what it will do to us over time, is still a struggle for Mankind.
Monsanto and their $3.5 million worth of lobbying have influence in Department of Agriculture’s 2015 spending policy, a policy that currently favors the status quo of limited diversity in the crops which are being planted. There will always be concerns when it comes to limiting the variety of crops produced in favor of mass production of a strand of ‘super seeds’; something could go wrong.
I understand that the Public can never really know the whole story in any debate. However, with Monsanto’s legislative influence in Washington, mixed with a good supply of anecdotal tales of Monsanto’s legal battles with small farmers and local governments, plus the X factor of what the individual does or does not understand about genetic manipulation, Monsanto is going to get maligned with a certain sector of the public. It is inevitable.

Thanks, Darren, I agree that big agricultural companies and organizations of farmers have too much influence in Washington and over the Farm Bill. Crony capitalism. I wonder what US agriculture would look like without a Farm Bill.

Because Monsanto sued the farmers onto whose land their seed blew. It’s that simple. (Yes, the issue itself is more complicated. But in the end, that’s the image I’ve had of Monsanto for all these years.)

The challenges with Monsanto, to me, aren’t about the safety of GMO food. They’re about legal and ethical issues around IP and monoculture. I’m pro-labelling, but will eat (most) GMO food without a second thought.

You remember that interview you did at Net Impact a few years ago, with the Monsanto PR person who kept dodging easy questions? People came out of that thinking Monsanto really was the organization OCA says they are. (I thought you were very fair.) Because she wouldn’t answer basic questions about supply chain numbers, or that whole nonsense about “labelling something makes people think it’s a bad thing.”

Monsanto wants this to be about science because that’s where they are trying to do good. Not so much in the other areas.

Thanks, Ian. I agree with you that Monsanto’s spokeswoman did not represent the company well at Net Impact. It was a disappointing interview. I’ve met some of their senior executives — Hugh Grant and Robb Fraley, in particular — who are very good at explaining the company, but generally the company has done a very poor job of making the case for itself.

I think you are referring to the lawsuit involving a Canadian farmer named Percy Schmeiser. Monsanto won the lawsuit. That’s because, at least according to the court, he was not an innocent victim of seeds that blew onto his land but a farmer who knowingly violated Monsanto’s patents. Whether you think seeds should be patented is a different question but, again, no one is forcing farmers to buy Monsanto’s seeds. (The case for patents: It takes 5-7 years and millions of dollars to develop new seed varieties. Someone’s got to pay for that research.)

Monsanto has not sued ” farmers onto whose land their seed blew”. Please inform me of such a situation. Percy Schmeister claimed that happened but the court record shows that not to be the case at all.

For one thing, it never happened, Ian. They sued Schmeiser for inappropriate use of their patented technology. Schmeiser never raised the issue of how the seed got on his property in the trial, although he makes lots of claims outside the courtroom and on the speaking circuit. If you look at the timeline, his story becomes even more questionable, and the possibility of a farmer giving him a bag of seed has been brought up. If seed from the neighbor’s 1996 crop blew onto Schmeiser’s property, it is unlikely that enough blew in for Schmeiser to risk spraying 3-4 acres of his own field with Roundup, unless he knew there was a good chance it was there. Canola seed is small, and might blow off a truck onto the edge of a field, but it is not like dandelion seeds that float on the air currents.

Knowing that it was Roundup Ready, and planting 1000 acres of it the next year is why Monsanto sued him. If he didn’t want it, why did he specifically save it and replant it? Your main argument against Monsanto falls apart.

Marc, citing the actual judgement will be more effective than Monsantos site. I have read that and several other court documents. Monsanto has never that I have found sued some one for accidental pollen drift. Further if there was an ongoing problem with such drift. You would hear anecdotal stories and of studies about field corn pollinating that summer sweet corn.

My nephew is an eco-biologist at Pioneer. (it was acquired by DuPont which has just been acquired by Dow.) He works on drought-resistant corn in Chile. When we talked about GMO, seed companies, and poor farmers he pointed out, as do you, that further impoverishing your client base and driving farmer suicides (Vandana Shivah’s claim) is hardly a business plan. She seems as loose with facts as the Republican party, and that’s saying something.
GoldenRice is one of these flashpoints. It has so much to offer nutritionally and, as I understand it, is open source. I really don’t see why activists object to something that would provide such a huge health upgrade for Asia’s poor.